Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony, please fill out a card.
• Thank you so much for your testimony for being here today.
• But thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The board is clear.
• And honestly, I found your testimony very clear.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Bills: HB91, HB123, HB167, HB255, HB264, HB321, HB884, HB955, HB967, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB985, HB994, HB1005, HB1104, HB1107, HB1109, SCR3

Keywords: criminal procedure, disclosure, criminal records, witness protection, trial rights, electronic monitoring, GPS ankle monitor, ankle bracelet, pretrial release, post-conviction supervision, bail monitoring, house arrest, corrections, criminal justice, law enforcement, prosecuting authority, court reporting, provider registration, LCLE, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee first handled housekeeping by voluntarily deferring HB 123, HB 255, and HB 994 without objection. It then took up SCR 3 by Sen. Myers, which sought to delay implementation of a State Police rule change affecting criminal history background checks for certain health care workers and authorized agents until October 1, 2026, to avoid hiring delays. An amendment was adopted to remove language authorizing parish and local law enforcement to perform checks during the interim. After testimony from health care stakeholders who supported the delay, SCR 3 as amended was reported favorably. The committee next considered HB 978 by Rep. Lecombe, which as amended changed the bill from a town-of-Addis-specific exception to a broader adjustment in the population threshold for municipalities required to remit special costs to the district indigent defender fund, raising the threshold from under 5,000 to under 9,000 population. Supporters said the change would relieve small mayor’s courts and similar local courts of a $45-per-violation burden that was not well suited to those systems. The bill drew support from local officials and was reported favorably as amended. HB 967 by Rep. Moore, which would have expanded parole eligibility for certain long-serving offenders convicted before July 2, 1973 by removing language limiting eligibility to those who had pleaded guilty, generated extensive debate. Supporters argued the bill would only allow elderly prisoners to be considered by the parole board and would not guarantee release, while opponents, including district attorneys and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, argued the 2022 law already covered those who pled guilty and that the bill would extend relief to people convicted at trial of serious violent crimes. After discussion, the motion to report HB 967 favorably failed on an 8-3 vote. The committee then heard HB 1107 by Rep. Melancon, a post-conviction procedure bill for capital cases involving claims of intellectual disability. The bill, as amended, raised the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence, required expert reports and IQ information, applied Daubert-style reliability screening, and clarified that it only applies in death penalty cases. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office and district attorneys said the bill would create a clearer procedure and speed resolution of Atkins claims; opponents from disability-rights, criminal defense, and medical groups argued it would replace clinical standards with a rigid statutory definition, rely too heavily on a 75 IQ cutoff, and risk excluding people with genuine intellectual disabilities. Testimony continued through the end of the transcript, with no final committee vote shown on HB 1107.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you both for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• Thank you both for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• <00:12:26.320> Thank name and and begin your testimony.
• Thank name and and begin your testimony. Thank you. you. you.
• ,<00:29:29.760> and name when you begin your testimony, and name when you begin your testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we will not be taking testimony. For those of you that sent in emails, we've received them.
• For those of not be taking testimony.
• So after we discuss in work testimony.
• I'm especially concerned about the testimony we heard from dees.
• <01:39:54.639> that um we heard plenty of testimony that um we heard plenty of testimony that

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with introductions and a description of the day’s process: a full committee work session on four bills, with no public testimony, followed by caucus and then executive action. The first bill discussed was HB 113, concerning OHRV operation on certain highways in Windsor. Representative Nab presented an amendment that would require a public hearing and Department of Transportation approval, modeled on procedures used in Coös and Grafton counties. Members discussed whether Windsor had already held a local vote or hearing, whether minutes from a town meeting existed, and whether the amendment truly preserved local control. A Windsor resident testified informally that the town had not taken a final vote and that the matter had been left to the state. Committee members also raised concerns about noise, dust, public safety, and the fact that the road in question would connect OHRVs on a state road rather than a trail system. The chair closed the work session on HB 113 and said the committee would return after caucus to vote on the bill and amendment. The committee then took up HB 595FN, relative to coastal resilience zones. Representative Nat said the bill addressed flooding concerns in both coastal and inland New Hampshire, but that the sponsor viewed it as too complex and had recommended breaking the issue into separate parts in future legislation. On that basis, Nat said it was appropriate to ITL the bill, and noted that the sponsor supported that course. No further discussion followed, and the work session was closed. Next was HB 629FN, funding the operation, maintenance, and repair of state dams. Representative Darby explained that the original bill had proposed both a waterfront frontage tax and a $5 charge tied to boat registration, but that the amendment would replace the bill by removing the frontage tax, moving the $5 dam-maintenance fee to the boat decal section of statute, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2027. Darby said the larger fee had raised concerns about impacts on current-use property and enforcement, while the revised $5 fee would raise roughly $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Representative Dunn thanked Darby and said the Marine Trades Association supported the revised approach. A question was raised about whether the original prime sponsors supported the amendment; the chair said they were on board, and Darby added that the proposal reflected recommendations from a prior study committee. The committee then closed HB 629FN and opened SB 27FN, relative to dwellings over water. On SB 27FN, Representative Derby said he opposed the bill because it would take away public access rights and amounted to a one-off legislative solution for a private concern. Representative Donnelly asked how many similar structures might be affected and whether the Department of Environmental Services knew of other cases; DES responded that there was one other related case under settlement compliance and no other active cases with the same issue. In follow-up discussion, DES clarified that the proposal was not a shoreland 50-foot setback issue, but rather involved structures extending over public water. The discussion remained focused on the scope of the bill and its potential precedent-setting effect, with no vote taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and members, we will move to testimony.
• Chair and members, we will move<00:16:31.680> to<00:16:32.000> testimony.
• And I believe the move to testimony.
• Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• And then come up and state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• As you all heard earlier on my testimony of the flood that I went through, I am living testimony that
• I'm interested to hear the testimony, but, um, oh, absolutely.
• All right, thank you very much for your testimony. I'm sorry. Representative Berry.
• We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Chair calls Marvin Jones.
• Good afternoon and thank you for hearing my testimony in favor of House Bill 3154.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a, uh, testimony from answers.
• to the committee for taking my testimony to the committee for taking my testimony this<00:22:10.320
• :31:52.479> their<03:31:52.880> air testimony of years past their air testimony of years
• became an exhibit in my testimony became an exhibit in my testimony um<05:21:37.760> last
• <05:24:55.120> in that we filed as testimony in that we filed as testimony in Eversource's

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:16.759> um from um their uh frequent testimony um from um their uh frequent testimony
• your testimony your testimony my<00:49:57.079> initial<00:49:57.520> question<00:49
• <01:27:49.199> on you've heard in other uh testimony on you've heard in other uh testimony
• card that's the only other uh testimony card that's the only other uh testimony that<01:41:08.280
• thank you so much for your testimony thank you so much for your testimony thank<04:15:16.040>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted weather-related absences and a large number of new bills. The chair said a subcommittee would be formed to review three cell phone bills, and a full committee work session on bullying would be scheduled for the week after next. The committee then began a hearing on House Bill 121, which would create local special education advisory councils in school districts. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the sponsor, said the councils would be parent-driven, with parents of children with disabilities advising districts on education, safety, program development, evaluation, planning, policies, and communication with administrators. He said the bill would require at least quarterly meetings with district administration, an annual parent workshop, and a year-end report to the school board. He also cited federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on parent advisory councils and said the goal was to improve collaboration between parents and schools. Members raised questions about the use of “shall,” how councils would be formed in districts without PTAs/PTOs, whether the councils could function in very small districts, privacy concerns about parents disclosing their children’s disabilities, whether the councils should include guardians or educational professionals, and whether the councils would have any direct tie to the state advisory council. The sponsor said the requirement was intended to make the councils mandatory, that local districts could organize them organically if needed, that participation would be voluntary, that parents would not be required to disclose private information, and that the councils would remain advisory rather than determinative. He also said costs should be minimal. Testimony then began from Nicole Sheath, a pediatric occupational therapist and parent of four children with disabilities, who described her experience balancing advocacy, school collaboration, and the demands of her children’s therapies and education.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:49.400> from the working group invited testimony from the working group invited testimony
• <01:43:08.520> opposing I'm going to read a testimony opposing I'm going to read a testimony
• That concludes our testimony, members.
• <02:09:02.200> We concludes our testimony, members. We concludes our testimony, members.
• <02:09:37.280> Thursday, and hear public testimony. Thursday, and hear public testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We did not specifically take testimony We did not specifically take testimony on<00:40:32.920>
• Earlier this session, our committee heard testimony from a formally incarcerated Vermonter.
• > sincere, Her testimony was thoughtful, sincere, Her testimony was thoughtful, sincere, and<01
• > continued Following that testimony, I continued Following that testimony, I continued conversations
• > multiple We took testimony from multiple We took testimony from multiple department<01:13:55.000

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House resumed consideration of H.606 on firearm procedures and first took up Section 3 and its effective dates. A member from Northfield spoke at length in support, arguing the provision is narrowly tailored, based on actual dangerousness rather than mental illness alone, and is more limited than federal law because it applies only to specific court findings and is temporary, with rights restorable upon recovery. The House then approved Section 3 and its effective dates, approved the remainder of the Judiciary Committee report, and ordered third reading. The chamber then moved through third readings and passed H.385 on remedies and protections for victims of coerced debt, H.556 on exceptions to the state minimum wage, H.559 on the parole board, H.723 on posting of land, and H.757 on manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives. On H.814, relating to neurological rights and AI in health and human services, the House adopted an amendment offered by the member from Burlington that required the advisory council to include proposed definitions for neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, and related terms in its report; the House Health Care Committee reported the amendment favorable 11-0-0, and the bill then passed. H.816, regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services, also passed, as did H.927, technical corrections for the 2026 session. The House then took up H.930 on chronic absenteeism. The committee member from Manchester described the bill as an AOE proposal responding to high post-pandemic absenteeism rates and their impact on learning, and outlined provisions adding definitions, updating compulsory attendance language, requiring a state model policy, strengthening notification and truancy procedures, and preserving existing penalties. The member said the Education Committee heard from a wide range of education and child welfare witnesses and passed the bill 11-0. After a brief clarification on the absences section, the House proceeded toward third reading of H.930.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• What's your pleasure public testimony.
• They've been provide some testimony.

Bills: HB0076, HB0102, HB0115

Keywords: annexation, landowner rights, municipal law, city planning, property, local government, artificial intelligence, synthetic sexual material, child protection, self-harm, criminal liability, cardiac emergency, defibrillator, school safety, training, public health, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Education Finance Committee met on February 5, 2025, to hear testimony from representatives of Minnesota’s Catholic and other nonpublic schools, focused on state nonpublic pupil aid, transportation, counseling, nursing, and related support programs. Meg Forette of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis argued that Catholic schools serve more than 30,000 students across many districts, educate a diverse population, and achieve strong academic results while operating at far lower per-student costs than public schools. She urged lawmakers to reject proposed cuts to nonpublic funding, saying they would be inequitable and harmful to lower-income families, and also raised concerns about state teacher-licensing requirements conflicting with Catholic values. Trisha Menshu, principal of St. John Paul II Catholic School in Northeast Minneapolis, described a student body with high levels of poverty, learning needs, and academic gaps, and said state-funded nurse and guidance-counseling services are essential to keeping students safe, healthy, and on track for high school. She said the school absorbs many costs itself, including medical supplies and significant staff time, and credited the support programs with helping students make strong academic growth and graduate on time. In response to a senator’s question, she clarified that the school uses the nursing aid for limited nurse time and pays other medical-related costs from operating funds, with no billing back to public school districts. Committee members asked follow-up questions about the relationship between teacher licensing and Catholic values, and about how medical needs for nonpublic students are funded. Forette said the concern was not with welcoming all students but with how DEI-related trainings and language are presented in ways that conflict with Catholic teaching. The committee then moved on to the next testifier, Andrew Hiliker of Stella Maris Academy in Duluth, who began by describing his school’s growth and the state’s role in supporting all students, regardless of school choice.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you'd identify yourself for the record, we're pleased to hear your testimony.
• John’s Minnesota item to be more visible and proceed with his testimony.
• visible and proceed with your testimony visible and proceed with your testimony yes<01:17:21.520
• <01:43:22.599> you complex uh under your testimony you complex uh under your testimony you
• Thank you, Senator Drazkowski, for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony, thank you. OK, the chair now calls up Luis Bazan.
• Bazan, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. Yes, sir. The chair now calls Skip Hewlett.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. I really appreciate it. Thank you, appreciate it.
• No further questions, we'll proceed to testimony. The chair calls. Oh, we don't have any testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• > uh<00:16:03.759> Senator the testimony, Senator uh Senator the testimony, Senator uh
• You've got about two minutes for your testimony. Okay.
• The council wishes to express testimony.
• give us your two minutes of testimony. give us your two minutes of testimony.
• My testimony will be a little events.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• would please come to the table, introduce yourself for the record, and you may proceed with your testimony
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thcker, thank you so much for your testimony.
• <00:21:06.240> Um Thank you so much for your testimony.
• <00:35:27.760> you've anything related to the testimony you've anything related to the testimony

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Kentucky Office of the Attorney General 00:01:18 LTS Kentucky Managed Technical Services LLC 00:13:41 Kentucky Wired Operations Company 00:34:20, 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its May 21 and June 10 meetings, then heard testimony from the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General on the effect of HB 314 on the Kentucky Communications Network Authority (KCNA) board. The Attorney General’s representative said HB 314 changed KCNA’s structure and staffing, but did not alter the statutory duties of the board, which still include developing and implementing strategic plans, providing policy direction, monitoring results, and approving fiscal planning. He argued the board is not merely advisory, has operational and budget authority, and that actions taken outside board approval could be ultra vires and without effect. He also noted the board historically approved settlements and contracts, including matters involving Open Fiber, and said the removal of the executive director position reduced direct personnel control but did not eliminate the board’s broader oversight. The committee then heard from representatives of Kentucky Managed Technical Services/LTS, who described a dispute over the Kentucky Wired network refresh and service-provider transition. They said the project agreement required a market test and acceptance of a proposal for both the network refresh and service-provider role, but that their proposals were rejected and the refresh work was later treated by the parties as a change order issue. They said some equipment worth about $3 million had been delivered, transferred, and paid for, while roughly $7 million in additional equipment was canceled by LTS but reportedly shipped to a KCNA warehouse and not paid for. They also said no refresh installation work has been performed, that they continue providing network maintenance to avoid service disruption, but believe the contract has expired and that there is no current agreement for ongoing service-provider work. Committee members asked whether actions taken without board approval would be invalid, whether the board could alter or terminate contractor arrangements, whether the bond disclosures suggesting a successful contract extension were accurate, and what equipment had been purchased or remained in storage. LTS representatives said they would follow up with the committee on the financial delta between the contracted rate and the month-to-month billing they say has been in effect since the contract expired, and on an inventory of in-service equipment and end-of-life dates. They said they want a commercial resolution, but if no resolution is reached soon they may pursue the formal contractual dispute process, and identified September 1 as their stated target date for resolving the matter and completing the refresh.

Transcript Highlights:

• All testimony comments are limited to the bill at hand.
• All testimony comments are limited to the bill at hand.
• We'll move on to your testimony. Please.
• And thank you for your testimony.
• Are there any others in opposition who would like to offer testimony?

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health bills focused on access to preventive care, behavioral health, hospital services, and patient safety. Early items included AB 554, which would expand and protect access to HIV prevention drugs like PrEP, including injectable forms and coverage protections; supporters said it would shore up access amid federal threats, while insurers opposed it as a costly benefit mandate. AB 577 would limit insurer and PBM practices that steer medications away from physician offices and require more transparency and patient consent; doctors and patient advocates supported it, while health plans and insurers warned it could raise drug costs and disrupt specialty pharmacy networks. AB 546 would require coverage for portable HEPA purifiers for vulnerable enrollees during declared emergencies, especially wildfire smoke events, with support from air quality and public health groups and opposition from insurers concerned about benefit expansion and cost. The committee also heard AB 224, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark plan after a public review process, adding infertility treatment, hearing aids, and durable medical equipment if approved by CMS for the 2027 plan year. DMHC said the state had completed the review and needed legislation to meet federal timing, and the measure drew broad support. AB 1032 would require plans and insurers to reimburse up to 12 additional behavioral health visits for enrollees in wildfire-affected counties for a limited period after an emergency; supporters argued it would fill gaps in trauma care after disasters, while insurers said existing parity and continuity-of-care rules already address the issue and that the bill could create inequities. AB 849 would require trained chaperones for sensitive ultrasound exams and training on how to observe and intervene; it was backed by a survivor and patient advocates, with hospitals and health districts raising staffing concerns. Later, AB 1196 would direct the Department of Public Health to update outdated rules requiring three surgeons for certain heart surgeries using cardiopulmonary bypass; supporters said the rule no longer reflects modern practice and strains staffing, while cardiology representatives had no formal opposition but wanted to review amendments. AB 1113 would codify a right to wear a mask for health reasons in public spaces, with support from disability and public health groups. AB 1386 sought to add perinatal care to the list of basic hospital services, prompting testimony about maternity ward closures, workforce shortages, and rural access; the author said the bill would be amended further and that the committee would need to revisit timelines and implementation details. The committee also heard AB 1429, which would address Kaiser’s repeated mental health parity violations and improve access to behavioral health care, though the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill is shown. Several bills were moved with motions and seconds, but many were held for quorum; AB 1196, AB 1113, and AB 1386 were among the measures advanced to a roll call or held on call, and the committee repeatedly noted that final votes would occur when quorum was available.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• You want to give some testimony? Yeah, we support the effort here.
• And there was testimony about that, but I don't remember the exact numbers.
• We do, I think, have some public testimony. We do, I think, have some public testimony.

Bills: HB9, HB177, HB181, HB202, HB225, HB398, HB459, HB540, HB906, HB1052, HB1057, HB1245

Keywords: HB 9, HB9, Act 527, Shreveport, Stuffed Shrimp Capital, state symbol, Louisiana symbols, municipal designation, honorary title, cultural designation, tourism, local pride, seafood, shrimp, stuffed shrimp, cuisine, city branding, Louisiana Revised Statutes 49:170.26, court reporter, official court reporter

Transcript Highlights:

• understand that you’re an employment lawyer, the Disability Law Center has stated and has provided testimony
• understand that you’re an employment lawyer, the Disability Law Center has stated and has provided testimony
• understand that you’re an employment lawyer, the Disability Law Center has stated and has provided testimony
• 00:08:30.520> and<00:08:30.640> has<00:08:30.800> provided<00:08:31.200> testimony
• <00:08:32.039> that stated and has provided testimony that stated and has provided testimony

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House debated Representative Hicks’ motion to place Senate File 3210 first on the calendar for the next day. Hicks said the bill, which concerns disability accommodations, had been on the general register since March 9 and had passed the Senate 46-18. Supporters argued it would strengthen the process for requesting accommodations and should be heard on the floor without further delay. Representative Niska opposed the motion, arguing the bill was poorly drafted, had not received enough committee work, and could create ambiguity in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He focused on the bill’s use of “may” in describing failure to engage in the accommodation process and questioned how the proposal would affect existing law in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education. Hicks responded that the bill addresses the process for reasonable accommodations, not the underlying accommodation standards, and said disability advocates and the Department of Human Rights supported the language. Several members spoke in favor of calendaring the bill, emphasizing that it was bipartisan, had already moved through committee, and was important to people with disabilities. Some supporters described the accommodation process as difficult and said the bill would help ensure good-faith engagement between employers and individuals seeking accommodations. The exchange ended with the motion still under debate, with members indicating the bill would likely be taken up on the floor the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• , me-too testimony: name, affiliation, and position.
• Now moving on to opposition testimony.
• We'll move on to testimony.
• We'll begin with testimony. Good afternoon.
• So is it your testimony that we're still not in compliance?

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 86, which would extend and expand the CAEATFA sales and use tax exclusion program through 2031, raise the annual cap from $100 million to $200 million, and add fusion energy. Supporters, including the State Treasurer and industry and labor representatives, cited billions in clean-tech investment, job creation, and environmental benefits; county groups opposed the bill over local revenue losses. The committee approved SB 86 on a 12-0 roll, holding the roll open for additional members. The committee then heard SB 545, which would require Go-Biz to study economic development opportunities along the California high-speed rail corridor, including land value, development incentives, and public-private partnerships. Labor, Fresno’s mayor’s office, and other stakeholders supported the bill as a way to spur corridor development and future funding opportunities, while one business group moved from opposition to neutral after amendments. The bill passed on a 9-1 vote, with the roll held open. Members next considered SB 63, a Bay Area transit funding measure authorizing a regional revenue measure to support transit operations amid looming fiscal shortfalls. The author and witnesses described severe service cuts that could follow without new funding, while committee members raised concerns about the bill’s structure, county participation, polling, and whether other revenue options should be considered. The bill advanced on a 9-3 vote, with the roll held open, and the committee also approved SB 263, directing a state study of tariff impacts on California’s economy and supply chains, on an 11-0 vote. Finally, the committee heard SB 661, which would redirect aviation-related tax revenues back to airports for aviation purposes and bring the state into compliance with federal requirements; testimony focused on airport modernization, rural access, and allocation formulas, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, please limit your testimony to three minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already
• Appreciate you traveling here and your testimony here today, sir. Thank you all very much.
• We have the Plano mayor here, my friend Mayor John Munns, to provide witness testimony and take questions
• Okay, but your testimony isn't related to other people; I just want to make sure in that capacity just
• Thank you for your testimony, sir.

Summary: The committee heard a long series of bills, most of them expanding or adjusting hotel occupancy tax or qualified hotel project authority for specific local governments. Measures discussed included HB 2404 for Childress County; HB 3066 for Allen’s Kalahari resort project; HB 4682 for Plano; HB 4683 for Anna; HB 3076 creating a project finance zone in Frisco; HB 3567 for Wichita County; HB 3715 for McAllen; HB 1039 for Alpine; HB 3182 for Burleson; HB 4926 for Grimes County; HB 4222 for Victoria County; HB 3377 for Katy; HB 4659 for Addison; HB 3241 for Georgetown; HB 4098 for Taylor; HB 3178 for Kerr County; HB 3179 for Mason County; HB 2289 for New Braunfels; HB 4412 for Kermit; HB 5165 for Monahans; HB 3500 for Bastrop; and HB 3169 for Carrollton. In each case, authors and local officials described tourism, convention, hotel, airport, or mixed-use development needs and argued the bills would help attract visitors, investment, and jobs. One non-hotel-tax bill, HB 4226, would exempt Texas food banks from sales tax on vehicle purchases and rentals, with testimony emphasizing the scale of food bank operations and the savings’ impact on meal delivery and disaster response. Testimony was generally supportive from city officials, economic development representatives, and industry groups such as the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association. Several witnesses described major private projects, including Kalahari in Allen, a proposed hotel and conference center in Addison, a mixed-use project in Georgetown, and a large development tied to Samsung growth in Taylor. For HB 4226, food bank representatives said the bill would help them purchase refrigerated trucks and other delivery vehicles, while an opponent questioned the fiscal note and the scope of the exemption. HB 4926 drew opposition from Camp Allen, whose representative argued a new county hotel tax would raise costs for guests and could hurt the retreat center’s operations. HB 3178 also drew an objection from a Kerr County resident who argued the tax would grow county government and pointed to event center losses, though the author said the revenue would support tourism-related county uses. The committee took no final votes on the bills in this transcript. After each bill was laid out and testimony concluded, the chair repeatedly asked whether there was objection to leaving the bill pending; in each instance, no objection was heard, and the bills were left pending. Several committee substitutes were offered and then withdrawn or noted as conforming drafts, but no bill was reported out or otherwise acted on beyond being left pending.